Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 Next
Comments 11851 to 11900:
-
nigelj at 16:00 PM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Regarding Red Barons information. Soil carbon sequestration from enhanced farming systems equals 5 - 20 tonnes CO2 / hect / yr. I assume this is additional sequestration over the normal sequestration of carbon from standard farming systems.
This number doesn't mean a lot to me, so I have tried to see what it means in terms of how much of global emissions such farming systems might sequester per year (tried a google search but nothing). Quick and very rough back of envelope calculation : Lets assume additional CO2 sequestered is 10 tonnes CO2 / hect / yr.
Total global arable land plus open range grasslands equals approx. 3 billion hectares. Lets assume 1 billion is suitable for enhanced soil carbon sequestration so this equals 10 billion tonnes / CO2 / yr sequestered.
Total CO2 emissions 2017 was approx. 36 billion tonnes / CO2 / yr. So 10 billions sequestered seems like significant potential.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:55 PM on 27 February 2019Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
jcfanclub:
I, too, would be interested in seeing you describe what you think is the data set that backs the "skeptic" side. Please pick one (to start), and explain what you find convincing about it.
-
RedBaron at 12:52 PM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
50 dollars a (metric?) ton at the rate of 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr for a farmer means something significant. Even a small farmer of 200 acres can earn additional ~ 25-100 thousand dollars a year sequestering carbon.
Do that and the price of beef and organic produce will drop and end up offsetting the extra costs in fossil fuels directly, while also directly removing the Carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it deep in the soil.
It will also offset a great injustice that has been perpetrated on small family farmers and rural comminities since the 1970's, namely the forced instability of the small family farm forcing millions off their land and out of their homes.
Even now only 46.1% of farmers have net positive income from farming. This would rejuvenate rural economies as well as rejuvenate degraded soils.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:50 PM on 27 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
eddieb:
Let me try to give another explanation. First, emission of radaition is given by Planck's Law, which tells you how much radiation is emitted at any wavelength, as a function of temperature and emissivity. Emissivity is correctly applied at a specific wavelength, not across all wavelengths as it is typcially used in the Stefan-Boltzman law. However, for solids and liquids, emissivity is usually fairly constant over a wide range of wavelengths, so it is not a bad approximation to treat it as a constant in some cases.
The Stefan-Boltsman law is the sum total of all radaition emitted at all wavelengths - essentially, the area under the curve described by Planck's law.
Now, to get back to your comment at #138. The earth's surface temperature is about 288K, as you describe. The surface emissivity in the infrared is not as low as you have suggested though - in fact, most natural surfaces are close to 1:
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity_table
So, a surface at 288K would emit something like 390 W/m2 - much more than the 240W/m2 that balances absorbed solar radiation. The issue is that the surface can't emit this all directly to space - the atmosphere blocks this.
THere are two ways to resolve this in the Stefan-Boltmann model:
- The atmosphere must be having a blocking action that makes the earth-atmosphere system behave as if the surface has an emissivity of 0.612, The reduction in apparent emissivity is a measure of the greenhouse effect.
- It isn't the surface that is emitting IR radiation to space. In essence, the blocking action of the atmosphere means that the amount emitted to space comes from somewhere up higher in the atmosphere. Because the upper troposphere is colder, we can say that it looks like it is the upper troposphere that is emitting to space, not the surface. That's where we will find the 255K temperature suggested by the Stefan-Boltzmann law with an emissivity of 1.
Both of these are pretty simplistic descriptions of what is happening, because the atmosphere does a lot of things other than radiation, but the basic ideas are sound: the atmosphere prevents the earth surface from emitting IR to space like a black body, and what does reach space is usually emitted at high altitude.
I hope this helps.
-
nigelj at 12:20 PM on 27 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
Facts will struggle to persuade conservatives. They like nuclear power because liberals dont like nuclear power. Its become politically tribal. But good luck, facts are probably still worth a try.
-
GregoryV at 11:21 AM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. Bill 763) is a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend approach. I think avoiding the word tax and giving all the "well head" fees back to the public as a monthly dividend is a good reminder about climate change and would offset some of the increased costs of fossil fuel by the suppliers. Fuel prices are going to go up regardless of what system is used to reduce emissions.
-
stevestory at 11:10 AM on 27 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
That Abbott article is very close to exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
-
Eclectic at 10:41 AM on 27 February 20192nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
AEBanner @1499 ,
Well said. Including your description of entropy as "untidiness".
This particular thermodynamic "Law" is a source of endless trouble to some people, because (as you have said) they do not look at the basic physical entities involved. Instead, they stand back and try to view the universe as ruled and directed by "Laws" . . . laws which are actually simply abstract conceptions in the human mind. It's all a very Nineteenth Century religion-like viewpoint. Very pre-Einstein, pre-quantum-mechanics way of thinking. Mistaking the concept for the reality. ( Can we blame Plato for this? )
-
Eclectic at 10:19 AM on 27 February 2019Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Jcfanclub @95 ,
to expand slightly on Scaddenp's comment, I can say that for quite some years I have paid fairly close attention to the news & disputes regarding modern climate change ~ and I have never come across any data supporting the "skeptic" viewpoints. Not even close. And not even heard of any such data, at second hand report.
I try to be skeptical, and keep an open mind to the possibility that some such valid supporting data could emerge . . . but all I have ever found is a group of "anti-mainstream" people whose ideas are often mutually-contradictory, and who are continually tangling themselves up in semantic confusion (often deliberately in confusion, I suspect ~ as a consequence of their "Motivated Reasoning" driven by their emotions).
Jcfanclub , it would be a great service to readers here, if you would demonstrate whatever data you feel disproves the mainstream science. It would be enormously interesting, if you could find anything of that sort!
Possibly you may not have heard of the Berkeley Earth "BEST" project ~ a study promoted & sponsored by a number of super-wealthy "skeptics" (such as the Koch brothers). Heading the study, was a scientist who was feeling quite dubious about all the mainstream science temperature data. The study reviewed temperature data & its validity, and reassessed/re-analysed, using its own criteria & methodology. And the BEST study came to the same conclusion as the mainstream. (The study's head scientist says he is no longer a "skeptic".)
# It was all a huge embarrassment for those who wish to deny reality . . . and they bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the BEST study. A study which was (IMO) their last hope of any serious scientific opposition to the mainstream climate science. Since then, we observers have seen nothing scientific coming from the self-called "skeptics" ~ all we see is FUD & confusionism plus carefully-crafted lawyer-talk from their propaganda wordsmiths.
-
Postkey at 09:38 AM on 27 February 2019Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
According to Michael Mann.
“02:13 . . . scientists who have studied this
02:15 problem say yeah there's a certain
02:16 amount of methane that we it could be
02:19 mobilized and it will add to the warming
02:21 but it's a small contribution compared
02:25 to the warming we are causing by the
F02:26 burning of fossil fuels . . . “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LifcMZyCYmc -
scaddenp at 08:45 AM on 27 February 2019Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
"So how does one determine who's fudging the data and who is not? "
Good question especially if you want an answer other than "whichever suits my biases". I am not sure what you mean by a dataset that "backs the skeptic case" (I dont think such a thing exists), but some criteria to look at:
1/ is it peer-reviewed? Any amount of nonsense put out by those who aim to deceive but these could not make it publication is a proper peer-reviewed journal.
2/ What does IPCC reports have to say on it - noting that the review process for IPCC has to be the most rigorous and open I have ever heard of. (You can see who said what and what the final editors judgement was and why).
3/ What is the consensus scientific position - ie what is assumed by experts working in the field?
4/ And if you dont like any of those, then you need to a/ get yourself the appropriate domain knowledge for assessment and b/ apply the disciplines of critical thinking that go into scientific evaluation.
There are plenty of threads here about deniers accusations of fraud. People are happy to help you evaluate the validity of arguments.
"Fudging the data" is an accusation of fraud. Anyone actually doing that would become pariah in scientific community. When there are numerous groups of scientists of all political associations working in many different countries, the chances for fraud are pretty minimal. What is usually objected to is the routine adjustments to homogenize, remove bias, or remove noise to various datasets. In this dialogue, anything that results in increased warming is "fudging the data". Anything that decreases it (eg the historical SST adjustment which is biggest change to temperature data) is good science. The better way to evaluate the adjustments is to ask "why is it being done", "is the methodology valid" and "how is it validated". Plenty of resource here to help. I dont think unadjusted data sets help the skeptic cause either unless they cherry pick (usually short intervals or particular regions).
Perhaps you first step would be to identify what skeptic resource you think is most convincing and find the appropriate thread here on it to comment further.
-
Ravenken at 08:11 AM on 27 February 2019Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
I just have to say that I am a little amazed at the gentle tenor of this dialogue considering what is actually going on. I go over and look at the NOAA MetOp-1 date LINK1
and also CAMS
and I see LARGE releases of methane constantly coming from undeveloped areas. Methane is skyrocketing and people use GPW100 to express CO2e. Just crazy.Can someone please give me an honest answer?
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened and hyperlinked URLs breaking page formatting.
-
nigelj at 07:40 AM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Sorry to sound like a parrot. J W Rebels comment was not there when I pushed submit. Hes right as well.
-
jcfanclub at 07:09 AM on 27 February 2019Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Why should we care what he thinks? He's not a climatologist, but then is the author of this post a climatologist? For that matter how many of the folks that contribute to IPCC reports are climatologists? It is my understanding that climate science involves many disaplines: chemistry, biology, computer modeling, statistics, economic impacts, and the list goes on. Personally, I'm sitting on the fence and I just want to inform myself of the simple truth, whatever that may be. But it's hard when there are two sets of data: one backing the warmist case and the other backing the skeptic's case. Both camps accuse the other of deception or being duped. So how does one determine who's fudging the data and who is not?
-
nigelj at 07:04 AM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Fair comments in the main, but it comes down more to political realities.
Clearly carbon taxes or cap and trade 'could' be applied to the climate issue and work in a technical sense, (but that you would still need other measures with both). Cap and trade was used successfully to resolve the ozone problem. Consumption taxes have worked to help get rates of tobacco smoking down and pay for the damages in my country of NZ. The climate problem is a consumption and energy substitution problem.
However its confoundingly complicated. Carbon taxes work best short term, cap and trade long term as below:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/31/carbon-tax-cap-and-trade
However this could possibly be resolved. While a carbon tax sets a price and not a limit on quantities, quantities can be monitored over time and the tax adjusted surely?.
The issue is which is most appropriate approach for the climate problem? Perhaps it partly comes down to "political acceptability". While the article is right that people dont like taxes, they dont like cap and trade schemes either, because they are opaque and look like a form of crony capitalism that favours the corporate sector. They might not be, but the perception is there among some of the general public posting comments in the media.
And the political difficulty of selling a carbon tax can be mitigated with a carbon fee and dividend scheme that uses different terminology and softens the blow with the dividend component. Technically cap and trade could return money to the public but It becomes a little more complex to explain to the public how it is all working.
-
AEBanner at 06:10 AM on 27 February 20192nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Greenhouse Gas Theory does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Attempts have been made to discredit the GHG theory by claiming that it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and so the theory cannot be valid. I have seen some rebuttals on this site, but I was not convinced; so I now offer my own approach which I hope will be helpful.
The claims of violation are based on the idea that heat cannot flow from a cold object to a hotter one. In general, with heat transfer by conduction and convection, this idea is very true. But the Second Law does not actually state that idea. In fact, it deals with another property of the system, known as entropy, which is the degree of disorder of the system. If the system is very “tidy”, the disorder is small, and so is the entropy. Great “untidiness” means high entropy.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system will increase.
It does not mention Heat.In the case of heat transfer, it is readily seen that the Law is obeyed by conduction and convection between objects in contact. Higher temperatures mean that the atoms and molecules are moving/vibrating more rapidly and to a greater extent than at colder temperatures, and so have high entropy. Some of the greater movements in the hot object can be passed into the cold object, so increasing the overall degree of disorder, or entropy, of the system. But, the reverse cannot happen, according to the Law, because the colder object has smaller entropy.
Therefore, heat can flow from hot to cold, but not from cold to hot. And it is only for conduction and convection transfer.
This leaves us to consider heat transfer by radiation.
This is the method by which heat is claimed to flow, according to the GHG theory, from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. But the atmosphere is cooler than the Earth’s surface, so how can this happen? Does it not violate the Second Law? And this is the big problem the GHG theory has to overcome.Not a problem. Consider photons of infrared energy emitted downwards from carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere. These are neat little wave-packets of electromagnetic energy, and have no charge. Very neat and tidy. The entropy involved is small because they are not continually in vibrational contact with each other, as are the atoms in a solid, or the molecules in a gas. Once emitted, they will continue in their motion until they are absorbed by the Earth’s surface, (although some may collide with molecules in the air). Upon absorption, the energy given to the surface atoms and molecules causes them to increase vibration and movement, and so the entropy, the degree of disorder, increases. OK, and the surface gains energy and so the temperature rises.
The entropy increases. This is in agreement with the Second Law. No violation, but the temperature of the surface of the Earth also increases. This is what the GHG theory says.
-
william5331 at 05:59 AM on 27 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Individual action is great and puts us in the proper frame of mind but the heavy lifting can only be done by politicians. No they don't have to actually do anything. They just have to set the ground rules so that it happens naturally. Such measures as taking off all government subsidies on fossil fuel and transfering them to renewables comes to mind but there are many other similar measures which would result in a rapid and smooth transition away from measures that add GHG to the atmosphere. But as usual, this will not happen if the vested interests are still allowed to finance politicians. Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune. The one necessary measure to get to this situation is obvious.
-
nigelj at 05:58 AM on 27 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Nick Palmer @6, I agree the concept of free speech is being abused to justify spreading fake news, lies and deceit. I dont think the notion of free speech was ever meant to encourage this. Fake news and a lack of agreed basic facts is really dangerous for society for obvious reasons. It will undermine everything including on both sides of politics. There will be no winners out of this.
Free speech is really about the right to express opinions and spread information freely without fear of legal retribution or violence, but is not open ended. For example society has all sorts of limits on free speech such as defamation law, time and place restrictions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
The question is how to treat "dissinformation". Personally I would like to see people who spread serious dissinformation, particularly climate denialists thrown in jail, or fined or something, but it would be hard for central government to legislate against this missinformation as it would be hard to define and expensive for them to enforce themselves, but I notice that the social media have been shamed into removing some of the dissinformation and this public pressure is good. The more public pressure the better.
Some of the things the Trump administration have done look like blatant attempts by them to muzzle free speech. Pages disappearing from climate websites, etc.
I feel free speech is a right, and with rights come unspoken responsibiliites to be honest and upfront and have good motives. As Google says dont be evil.
-
stevestory at 05:56 AM on 27 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
I read the nearly 200 myths first to see if the subject was addressed, but I didn't see it. On several discussion boards I've seen people, usually conservatives, respond to global warming with nuclear power nuclear power nuclear power. I have a physics background, so I was able to spend 30 minutes putting together a quick explanation of why nuclear power is not a solution to global warming, because of the lead time for building new plants, the number of new plants that would be needed, the problems with waste, the expense of decommissioning, etc etc. But I was wondering if anybody knew of a comprehensive explanation that addresses all the considerations about why nuclear power is an inadequate response to global warming, so I could just link to that instead of having to reargue it each time.
Steve
Moderator Response:[PS] Some nuclear power proponents coming here have been asked to write up an article (which would need to be reviewed) putting the case, and backed by peer-reviewed literature. So far havent had any takers. Abbot 2011 does not seem to have an adequate reply from the nuclear industry but maybe there is one now. Does it fit your requirements? The main problem nuclear power has is convincing investors that it is a good deal.
-
JWRebel at 05:14 AM on 27 February 2019Prices are not Enough
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but the politics and optics are important. A carbon tax with and accompanying per capita carbon dividend which leverages "market forces" is a lot easier to sell and actually get done. By taxing embedded carbon in imports, you can get around one of the major objections (international competitiveness).
Of course we also need to encourage research (we do that with public means already for many things), and redirecting direct fossil fuel subsidies provides hundreds of billions of runway for strategic public programs.
-
Nick Palmer at 04:14 AM on 27 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
I have to say I think certainot @3 raises a good point. Is it just me or do others also think that the first amendment to the US constitution - the 'free speech one' - which I trust was originally brought in to allow honesty and truth and genuine information to be spread and not crushed by darker forces - is increasingly being abused to spread deceit, delusion and disinformation - in short, bad actor propaganda?
I'm old enough to remember those times when people fought, and occasionally died, for the right to 'speak truth to power' without being stamped upon. I venture that literally none of those heroes went out to fight their good fight with the aim of bolstering indiviuals and organisations who lie and deceive and mislead and generally muddy the waters in the public arena -
AEBanner at 01:13 AM on 27 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Thank you again, MA Roger and Eclectic, for your help. Very interesting.
eddieb
-
MA Rodger at 19:37 PM on 26 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
eddieb @138,
To address your puzzlement directly, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with albedo to reduce insolation accounted for - this does produce the 255K a global temperature. By adding the emissivity term at the value you use, the result is 288K, the average temperature of the global surface, rather than the effective temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude which emits energy to space. I think you will find that the value for emissivity you use, 0.612, is derived and used as an expression of the 33K GHG effect and is not a measured value.
The use of the emissivity term in Stefan-Boltzmann for use in a climate model is fraught will difficulty. The added complexity is not worth the effort, not least because emissivity considerations will be heavily wavelength-dependent and absorbivity (involving reflectivity/transperancy) also enters the mix. I would be happy to explain these difficulties further, but it is a dead-end in global climate modeling without entering the very-complex.
-
BaerbelW at 15:16 PM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
certainot @3
Have you tried contacting groups which regularly dig into stuff like this? I'm thinking for example of Desmog and/or Inside Climate News. They might be interested in checking this out if you dropped them a note.
You could try via their contact-forms:
https://www.desmogblog.com/contact_us -
Eclectic at 10:21 AM on 26 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Eddieb @138 ,
I'm not sure how your earlier comments came through to this thread, but things may as well stay here (unless the moderators wish to move it to Myth #65 or elsewhere). The listing of Climate Myths, on top left corner of every page, is numerical (for convenience of reference by readers) . . . but once you click on a Myth, and arrive at the thread, there's unfortunately no Number readily visible, to confirm that you have arrived at the correct destination.
Eddieb, it sounds like you would be aiming to get into the ground floor of self-education about "greenhouse" & related physics. It is not an intuitively obvious effect, and you need to learn and carefully think your way through the physical mechanisms involved (which concern the radiative physics of the "radiatively active gasses" ~ which is not at all like in a garden greenhouse, where the warming effect comes primarily from reduction of convective heat loss).
The Earth gains heat from solar radiation (of course!) and loses almost-precisely the same heat flux outwards into space, in the form of infra-red radiation (from the radiatively active gasses H2O, CO2, CH4, NO2, O3, etcetera). As very rough figures to remember, the outwards IR heat loss is : 60% from H2O; 30% from CO2, and 10% from the minor gasses.
I gather you are already somewhat aware of these actions, and the SB radiative formula. I am not clear where your uncertainty lies. Perhaps you are not separating the IR radiation from the Earth's surface . . . from the IR radiation from the upper atmosphere where the heat flux actually leaves the planet. Please excuse my usage of words like flux and heat and radiation and energy ~ in common parlance these are jumbled together and used rather unrigorously : but the underlying meanings are obvious enough when you think about the context.
Chase up the widely-known energy flux cartoon by Trenberth et al. It shows the influxes, outfluxes, reflectances, convections, H2O-phase-changes, back-radiations etc.
Commonly, scientists talk about the planetary heat loss as occurring at Top Of Atmosphere [ TOA ] but the TOA outwards flux is not happening at a narrow precise altitude (e.g. 6023 meters or whatever). It is happening at a band of altitude, varying with latitude and season etc., and is happening at a different band for H2O, a different band for CO2, a different band for CH4, and so on.
Between the solid surface and the TOA, is where the "greenhouse" effect occurs. I could give you a neat analogy with football players doing running exercises . . . but my post here is already rather too long.
Have a look at some of the eye-catching Climate Myths, which are great for doing some piece-meal self-education on climate science.
If you wish to "relax" while gaining info, then I recommend the Youtube videos by Potholer54. There are a couple of dozen or so of them [and a separate series debunking Anti-Evolution]. Potholer54 is a science journalist, who presents his info as based not on opinion by Talking Heads & Propagandists , but based on the actual science demonstrated in peer-reviewed papers from reputable science journals. His videos (usually about 10 minutes long) educate you somewhat indirectly, by meticulously debunking all the nonsenses coming from "the usual suspects" such as Moncton, Ball, Youtuber pundits, and even Al Gore too. Debunking, with listed references so you can check yourself on what he himself has said ~ and check on the misinformation / propaganda / downright deliberate porkies spouted by the anti-AGW brigade.
I recommend Potholer54, because I believe it is likely you will find his videos informative and vastly amusing in their humorous style. Entertainment +++
-
RedBaron at 06:52 AM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
I like the way they distinguish between individual change and systemic change in this video. However, the dietary advice given in this video is counter productive... really for the reasons given in the video itself actually.
In reality it is the production methods used for all our foods that make them either carbon sources or sinks and to what degree. So in this case Miriam is correct. It is a structural problem that the individual consumer's choices have very little effect improving.
Except that's not all there is to it. A person who doesn't eat meat can't use their power of consumer choice to change the way meat is raised. You are no longer a customer, and the meat industry no longer cares what your preferences would be. You don't eat meat, so therefor your opinion on how that food is raised no longer matters. It's a pity, but it is a fact of life.
But someone who boycotts meat raised in a way that is a carbon source and instead eats only meat produced in a way that makes it a carbon sink, when multiplied many times over, will ultimately cause a one business model to be more successful than the other. The same goes for local organic fruit and vegetable foods too. As one business model becomes more popular and profitable, the producers will change their production models to fill this consumer demand. Again, it is consumer demand they will ultimately meet. If you are no longer a consumer of their product, there is no consumer demand to meet.
This is how individual action repeated enough times can force systemic changes.
-
certainot at 06:01 AM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Here is a suggestion for EASY structural change in the US - the 88 major universities listed at republiconradio.org help Republicans deny, spread misinformation, and obstruct action on global warming on the local and national level by broadcasting sports on 260 Rush Limbaugh talk radio stations. Those stations intimidate Republican politicians and scientists in media who would suggest global warming is real. They also help elect deniers.
One major reason the US is so far behind is Republican talk radio. There are several hundred talk show hosts on 1200 to 1500 talk radio stations who would likely lose their jobs if they didn't deny global warming or at the very least attack green energy initiatives in their own communities by lying about job loss, etc. They reach 50 mil a week as a well-protected 20-1 monopoly.
600 of those stations, including some of the loudest AM stations in the country, are headlined by the loudest and most powerful voice in Republican politics the last 30 years, Rush Limbaugh. All Republican talkers have to follow his lead. When the East Anglia emails were hacked by the Russians and taken out of context he spent a week 3 hrs/day calling them proof that climate change was a hoax. That ensured that no Republican and even some conservative Democrats could support Obama at Copenhagen a week later. He was calling the scientists 'traitors' and some got death threats. He and Trump still cite the East Anglia emails as 'hoax' proof. Some have suggested he has unknowingly been used by Putin on this and other issues.
By broadcasting sports on those 260 stations, 88 universities (at least) help the stations attract advertisers and community credibility.
Very few environmentalists, students, faculty at those 88 universities and in those communities listen to Republican talk radio. Most unaware of the associations or the significance and the part their universities are playing in supporting denial and undermining their activism and concern.
All those universities are appropriate places to complain/protest until they begin looking for non-denying apolitical alternatives to broadcast sports on.
When one university does the right thing others will follow.
-
nigelj at 05:33 AM on 26 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
I read an article called regenerative agriculture on wikipedia last year. Quite an eye opener. One system, many benefits.
-
nigelj at 05:27 AM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Obviously we need both individual action, systemic change and government action. But lets look at it more specifically. Individuals can reduce meat consumption, and there are many reasons to do this. Governments cannot do much about this issue, other than education perhaps.
Most individuals might be reluctant to buy electric cars and solar panels etc until they are affordable and perhaps subsidised by government, or alternatively they are impelled to make changes by a carbon fee and dividend. People are locked into an economic system of debt and credit cards where they live almost week to week so finding extra money is not easy. Savings are zilch. We want people to have noble environmental values that take precedence but realism is also needed.
Bottom line: make some changes in your personal lives, even easy ones like reducing meat consumption and buying smaller cars, and lobby politicians hard on the climate issue. If enough people do this they will be forced to take notice.
-
nigelj at 05:12 AM on 26 February 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Thought provoking related article : Mitigating Climate Disaster Will Require Both Systemic and Lifestyle Changes.
-
william5331 at 03:59 AM on 26 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8
Organic farming, if only practiced to satisfy the 'letter of the law' is not the answer. Read Growing a Revolution by Montgomery and/or The Third Plate by Barber for a better way, which is actually what we would all think of when we hear the term Organic Farming.
-
AEBanner at 01:33 AM on 26 February 2019Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
As suggested, I am transferring comments from New Research to Climate Myth #65
Thank you MA Rodger and Eclectic for your help, but I am puzzled how the GHG effect for increasing Earth's surface temperature by 33 deg C ties in with Stefan-Boltzmann simple radiation calculations.
If we take the measured values of 0.297 and 0.612 for the Earth's albedo and emissivity respectively, and 342 Watts per square metre incoming energy from the sun, then we find energy balance at 288.5 K. Very good. This without mention of GHG effect. So I'm puzzled.
Moderator Response:[PS] You are missing quite a few important details - starting with albedo.
-
RedBaron at 01:19 AM on 26 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
@8 MA Rodger
Here is evidence from the past of this ecosystem function:
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
Gregory J. Retallack DOI: 10.1086/320791
And here is a review of how we can apply the paleo record of this ecosystem function to modern times and near future AGW mitigation.
Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future
Gregory J. Retallack doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001
And here is empirical evidence of carbon sequestration rates in the field under various agricultural techniques and systems. A careful examination of the evidence with an understanding of how the LCP functions makes it very clear which systems use the LCP and why the difference in rates seen. It also confirms that the average sequestration rate of ~5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr holds true in environments tested around the world.
Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change
Jorge A. Delgado, Peter M. Groffman, Mark A. Nearing, Tom Goddard, Don Reicosky, Rattan Lal, Newell R. Kitchen, Charles W. Rice, Dan Towery, and Paul Salon doi:10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A
Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis
Eduardo Aguilera, Luis Lassaletta, Andreas Gattinger, Benjamín S.Gimeno
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming
Andreas Gattinger, Adrian Muller, Matthias Haeni, Colin Skinner, Andreas Fliessbach, Nina Buchmann, Paul Mäder, Matthias Stolze, Pete Smith, Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, and Urs Niggli doi/10.1073/pnas.1209429109
Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security
Rattan Lal doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.8
The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America
W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byc doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie
W.R.Teague, S.L.Dowhower, S.A.Baker, N.Haile, P.B.DeLaune, D.M.Conover doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009
Some of these have paywalls, so if you have difficulty getting past them, message me for a private copy for personal use only.
@9 Philippe Chantreau The best I have for Dr Christine Jones is a short CV I posted here a while back: Christine Jones - short CV
-
AEBanner at 00:56 AM on 26 February 2019New research, December 10-16, 2018
Thank you MA Rodger and Eclectic for your help.
As suggested, I am transferring to Climate Myth #65
-
MA Rodger at 23:11 PM on 25 February 2019New research, December 10-16, 2018
eddieb @1,
There is a paper that models what would happen if all the long-lived GHGs were suddenly taken from the atmosphere - Lacis et al (2010) shows the surface temperature dropping fron +14ºC to -21ºC in 50 years. It hadn't stopped reacting by that time so the eventual temperature would be lower still.
While this is no more than facinating stuff and the eventual global temperature would rely not on GHGs but on things like how shiny the frozen oceans turn out to be (although through the eons the water would probably be transported poleward so 'frozen oceans' would be a poor description), it does demonstrate that the current GHG effect is +33ºC or there abouts.
-
Eclectic at 22:53 PM on 25 February 2019New research, December 10-16, 2018
Eddieb @1 ,
the so-called Greenhouse Effect (for all relevant gasses, including H2O) ties in with the 33 degrees . . . and, well, with everything really. It is all one.
It might be helpful, if you could explain in more detail how you see any difficulties / differences.
But best to pursue your discussion on one of the appropriate threads for such a topic. Such as on Climate Myth number #65 or maybe #36.
-
AEBanner at 21:59 PM on 25 February 2019New research, December 10-16, 2018
I think I understand the Greenhouse Gas theory explanation for anthropogenic global warming, but does this theory apply also to the Earth's surface temperature being raised by 33 degrees?
eddieb
-
nigelj at 08:54 AM on 25 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
Alonerock, oops sorry I got the names confused. I hope I have at least helped with one point.
Nobody is going to have the time to go through every ridiculous statement by Moore, so have a look at the myths in the left hand of this page, because its mostly all there. Mostly, because restoring land after mining is not really a climate issue, but I suspect a google search would quickly establish if mines fulfill their obligations to restore the land.
-
alonerock at 08:21 AM on 25 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
this was not my text, It was Moore's and I was simply asking people to comment on his errors, of which there are many. Possibly too lengthy to correct. I was simply hoping for help that would save me some time, and I will aslo do my own research to refute his opinions.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fair enough, I admit I jumped to conclusions. You will find the search function very useful for locating the science to refute that myth collection.
-
nigelj at 05:14 AM on 25 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
"CO2 lags temperature by an average of 800 years during the most recent 400,000-year period, indicating that temperature is the cause, as the cause never comes after the effect."
Well this is of course wrong. It's well known that while changes in the planets orbit caused the initial warming, CO2 caused most of the warming as a feedback mechanism here.
However its wrong in other respects as well. I read this article on some research that the 800 year lag is only a couple of hundred years, and it has some interesting explanations on how the feedback mechanism worked in the antarctic region here.
The point being that this is one example of many where alonewrock is not only deluded, but is so out of touch with more recent research and data.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:10 AM on 25 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
RedBaron, I looked for LCP and Christine Jones. I found a lot of talks, her book, multiple sites dedicated to new agricultural methods but no peer-reviewed publications. Can you point us in the right direction?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:48 AM on 25 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
This could be the mother of all Gish gallops. If you want anyone to give some attention to such a huge pile of nonsense, you should break it up in smaller fragments and take them to the appropriate thread. No references are provided and some parts of the gallop will show up obivously as the gross lies they are with only a few minutes of scrutiny. Other parts are more sophisticated and relfect craftmanship in misrepresentation. Some are accurate and of course out of context or used outside of their significance. It is obvious he is advocating for his industry. If you want to argue, perhaps you should do your own work. There is plenty on this site, and Google scholar is your friend.
-
MA Rodger at 03:41 AM on 25 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
alonerock @3,
These are the words of a deluded climate change denier from an address he made 3-years-ago to a room of other climatechange deniers (in total 6,300 words). The extract you present is still rather long (2,300 words). Is there a particular part of it that needs rebunking? (A quick scan down to where he starts off about tar sands shows it is all pretty-much waffly nonsense, so it is all up for the treatment.)
-
alonerock at 01:21 AM on 25 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
Hi All-
Please comment on Moore's text below so that I can refute his opinions with facts in an argument I am having with a friend about its content:
Patrick Moore Comments to refute/clarify:
CO2 lags temperature by an average of 800 years during the most recent 400,000-year period, indicating that temperature is the cause, as the cause never comes after the effect.
Looking at the past 50,000 years of temperature and CO2 we can see that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. This is as one could expect, as the Milankovitch cycles are far more likely to cause a change in temperature than a change in CO2. And a change in the temperature is far more likely to cause a change in CO2 due to outgassing of CO2 from the oceans during warmer times and an ingassing (absorption) of CO2 during colder periods. Yet climate alarmists persist in insisting that CO2 is causing the change in temperature, despite the illogical nature of that assertion.
. Will our CO2 emissions stave off another glaciation as James Lovelock has suggested? There doesn’t seem to be much hope of that so far, as despite 1/3 of all our CO2 emissions being released during the past 18 years the UK Met Office contends there has been no statistically significant warming during this century.
By 7,000 years ago all the low-altitude, mid-latitude glaciers had melted. There is no consensus about the variation in sea level since then although many scientists have concluded that the sea level was higher than today during the Holocene Thermal optimum from 9,000 to 5,000 years ago when the Sahara was green. The sea level may also have been higher than today during the Medieval Warm Period.
Coming back to the relationship between temperature and CO2 in the modern era we can see that temperature has risen at a steady slow rate in Central England since 1700 while human CO2 emissions were not relevant until 1850 and then began an exponential rise after 1950. This is not indicative of a direct causal relationship between the two. After freezing over regularly during the Little Ice Age the River Thames froze for the last time in 1814, as the Earth moved into what might be called the Modern Warm Period.
The IPCC states it is “extremely likely” that human emissions have been the dominant cause of global warming “since the mid-20th century”, that is since 1950. They claim that “extremely” means 95% certain, even though the number 95 was simply plucked from the air like an act of magic. And “likely” is not a scientific word but rather indicative of a judgment, another word for an opinion.
There was a 30-year period of warming from 1910-1940, then a cooling from 1940 to 1970, just as CO2 emissions began to rise exponentially, and then a 30-year warming from 1970-2000 that was very similar in duration and temperature rise to the rise from 1910-1940. One may then ask “what caused the increase in temperature from 1910-1940 if it was not human emissions? And if it was natural factors how do we know that the same natural factors were not responsible for the rise between 1970-2000.” You don’t need to go back millions of years to find the logical fallacy in the IPCC’s certainty that we are the villains in the piece.
Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas, and is the only molecule that is present in the atmosphere in all three states, gas, liquid, and solid. As a gas, water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but as a liquid and solid it is not. As a liquid water forms clouds, which send solar radiation back into space during the day and hold heat in at night. There is no possibility that computer models can predict the net effect of atmospheric water in a higher CO2 atmosphere. Yet warmists postulate that higher CO2 will result in positive feedback from water, thus magnifying the effect of CO2 alone by 2-3 times. Other scientists believe that water may have a neutral or negative feedback on CO2. The observational evidence from the early years of this century tends to reinforce the latter hypothesis.
Even at the today’s concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher, 2000 ppm, yet the alarmists warn it is already too high.
All the CO2 in the atmosphere has been created by outgassing from the Earth’s core during massive volcanic eruptions. This was much more prevalent in the early history of the Earth when the core was hotter than it is today. During the past 150 million years there has not been enough addition of CO2 to the atmosphere to offset the gradual losses due to burial in sediments.
Today, at just over 400 ppm, there are 850 billion tons of carbon as CO2 in the atmosphere. By comparison, when modern life-forms evolved over 500 million years ago there was nearly 15,000 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere, 17 times today’s level. Plants and soils combined contain more than 2,000 billion tons of carbon, more that twice as much as the entire global atmosphere. The oceans contain 38,000 billion tons of carbon, as dissolved CO2, 45 times as much as in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels, which are made from plants that pulled CO2 from the atmosphere account for 5,000 – 10,000 billion tons of carbon, 6 – 12 times as much carbon as is in the atmosphere.
But the truly stunning number is the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and turned into carbonaceous rocks. 100,000,000 billion tons, that’s one quadrillion tons of carbon, have been turned into stone by marine species that learned to make armour-plating for themselves by combining calcium and carbon into calcium carbonate. Limestone, chalk, and marble are all of life origin and amount to 99.9% of all the carbon ever present in the global atmosphere. The white cliffs of Dover are made of the calcium carbonate skeletons of coccolithophores, tiny marine phytoplankton.
The vast majority of the carbon dioxide that originated in the atmosphere has been sequestered and stored quite permanently in carbonaceous rocks where it cannot be used as food by plants.
Beginning 540 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Period many marine species of invertebrates evolved the ability to control calcification and to build armour plating to protect their soft bodies. Shellfish such as clams and snails, corals, coccolithofores (phytoplankton) and foraminifera (zooplankton) began to combine carbon dioxide with calcium and thus to remove carbon from the life cycle as the shells sank into sediments; 100,000,000 billion tons of carbonaceous sediment. It is ironic that life itself, by devising a protective suit of armour, determined its own eventual demise by continuously removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This is carbon sequestration and storage writ large. These are the carbonaceous sediments that form the shale deposits from which we are fracking gas and oil today. And I add my support to those who say, “OK UK, get fracking”.
The past 150 million years has seen a steady drawing down of CO2 from the atmosphere. There are many components to this but what matters is the net effect, a removal on average of 37,000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere every year for 150 million years. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was reduced by about 90% during this period. This means that volcanic emissions of CO2 have been outweighed by the loss of carbon to calcium carbonate sediments on a multi-million year basis.
If this trend continues CO2 will inevitably fall to levels that threaten the survival of plants, which require a minimum of 150 ppm to survive. If plants die all the animals, insects, and other invertebrates that depend on plants for their survival will also die.
How long will it be at the present level of CO2 depletion until most or all of life on Earth is threatened with extinction by lack of CO2 in the atmosphere?
During this Pleistocene Ice Age, CO2 tends to reach a minimum level when the successive glaciations reach their peak. During the last glaciation, which peaked 18,000 years ago, CO2 bottomed out at 180 ppm, extremely likely the lowest level CO2 has been in the history of the Earth. This is only 30 ppm above the level that plants begin to die. Paleontological research has demonstrated that even at 180 ppm there was a severe restriction of growth as plants began to starve. With the onset of the warmer interglacial period CO2 rebounded to 280 ppm. But even today, with human emissions causing CO2 to reach 400 ppm plants are still restricted in their growth rate, which would be much higher if CO2 were at 1000-2000 ppm.
Here is the shocking news. If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, all of which had been in the atmosphere as CO2 before sequestration by plants and animals, life on Earth would have soon been starved of this essential nutrient and would begin to die. Given the present trends of glaciations and interglacial periods this would likely have occurred less than 2 million years from today, a blink in nature’s eye, 0.05% of the 3.5 billion-year history of life.
No other species could have accomplished the task of putting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere that was taken out and locked in the Earth’s crust by plants and animals over the millennia.
It does boggle the mind in the face of our knowledge that the level of CO2 has
been steadily falling that human CO2 emissions are not universally acclaimed as a miracle of salvation. From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2’s impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming. And even if there were some additional warming that would surely be preferable to the
analysis of the historical record and the prediction of CO2 starvation based on the 150 million year trend. Ad hominem arguments about “deniers” need not apply. I submit that much of society has been collectively misled into believing that global CO2 and temperature are too high when the opposite is true for both. Does anyone deny that below 150 ppm CO2 that plants will die? Does anyone deny that the Earth has been in a 50 million-year cooling period and that this Pleistocene Ice Age is one of the coldest periods in the history of the planet?
If we assume human emissions have to date added some 200 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, even if we ceased using fossil fuels today we have already bought another 5 million years for life on earth. But we will not stop using fossil fuels to power our civilization so it is likely that we can forestall plant starvation for lack of CO2 by at least 65 million years. Even when the fossil fuels have become scarce we have the quadrillion tons of carbon in carbonaceous rocks, which we can transform into lime and CO2 for the manufacture of cement. And we already know how to do that with solar energy or nuclear energy. This alone, regardless of fossil fuel consumption, will more than offset the loss of CO2 due to calcium carbonate burial in marine sediments. Without a doubt the human species has made it possible to prolong the survival of life on Earth for more than 100 million years. We are not the enemy of nature but its salvation.Some of the world’s oil comes from my native country in the Canadian oil sands of northern Alberta. I had never worked with fossil fuel interests until I became incensed with the lies being spread about my country’s oil production in the capitals of our allies around the world. I visited the oil sands operations to find out for myself what was happening there.
It is true it’s not a pretty sight when the land is stripped bare to get at the sand so the oil can be removed from it. Canada is actually cleaning up the biggest natural oil spill in history, and making a profit from it. The oil was brought to the surface when the Rocky Mountains were thrust up by the colliding Pacific Plate. When the sand is returned back to the land 99% of the so-called “toxic oil” has been removed from it.
Anti-oil activists say the oil-sands operations are destroying the boreal forest of Canada. Canada’s boreal forest accounts for 10% of all the world’s forests and the oil-sands area is like a pimple on an elephant by comparison. By law, every square inch of land disturbed by oil-sands extraction must be returned to native boreal forest. When will cities like London, Brussels, and New York that have laid waste to the natural environment be returned to their native ecosystems?
The art and science of ecological restoration, or reclamation as it is called in the mining industry, is a well-established practice. The land is re-contoured, the original soil is put back, and native species of plants and trees are established. It is possible, by creating depressions where the land was flat, to increase biodiversity by making ponds and lakes where wetland plants, insects, and waterfowl can become established in the reclaimed landscape.
The tailings ponds where the cleaned sand is returned look ugly for a few years but are eventually reclaimed into grasslands. The Fort McKay First Nation is under contract to manage a herd of bison on a reclaimed tailings pond. Every tailings pond will be reclaimed in a similar manner when operations have been completed.Moderator Response:[PS] Welcome to Skeptical Science. Your comment reads as gish-gallop of debunked myths and violates comments policy. Please use the Search function or the "Arguments" menu item to find appropriate topics and put your comments there. Questions are welcome but please note that conformance with the comments policy is not optional.
-
Postkey at 20:13 PM on 24 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
"The year is 2100." Is it?
10 September 2018
Secretary-General's remarks on Climate Change“If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us.”
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2018-09-10/secretary-generals-remarks-climate-change-delivered -
MA Rodger at 18:44 PM on 24 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
RedBaron @7,
Your contention @5 is "We have degraded the environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere." Yet, as I pointed out @6, the references you cited do not support the contention that we have trashed a CO2 sequestration mechanism.
Now you say "It's been measured." Has it? You give no numbers for this lost CO2 sequestration. I would not be surprised if there were CO2 sequestration mechanisms that have been trashed by humanity but to suggest their loss is significant in the short term. Such lost CO2 sequestration may become significant over centuries. But decades?
If this issue is your raison d'être for rubbing shoulders in the climatological web-discourse, I would suggest you talk the right language. How much CO2 per hectare per year would be sequestrated by restoring these lost CO2 sinks?
-
RedBaron at 16:14 PM on 24 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
@6 MA Rodger,
It's been measured. I have been trying to push the point again and again because precisely this is what is being missed.
In soil science we knew for over 100 years there was this mysterious rapid accumulation of stable carbon, in large amounts, over long periods of time, deep in certain soils under certain conditions. But besides that it was associated with grasslands, no one knew precisely what was going on. It was counter-intuitive.
Dr Sarah Wright, a soil scientist for the USDA discovered the missing link in 1996, Glomalin. It is such a fundamental breakthrough, literally there has been no Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry that has ever made a more important discovery, in my opinion. But because this is a rather obscure field that very few understand, she isn't recognized as much for it as she should be.
Glomalin is the missing link, but the whole chain is what matters. It has been called the liquid carbon pathway and it is a completely natural carbon pump into the soil and is a primary forcing along with Milankovitch cycles explaining rapid decreases in excess CO2 between each and every glaciation period since this ecosystem function became mature.
Remember, this is a self regulating complex system. The biosphere is a major, if not the major, feedback in that system.
More CO2 means more LCP which sequesters deep in the soil profile. Thus the CO2 spikes are evened out quickly by this feedback.
Mankind has not created this feedback, we simply unknowingly destroyed it with our plows and pesticides mostly and somewhat also the mass extirpation of the megafauna. It does not need man's assistance except in restoring a healthy soil food web and the rest is done naturally.
We never knew about this biological function because it was largely destroyed before we even started looking! However, we do know about it now. We know what it is, how it works, and most importantly, how to mimick this natural biome function with agriculture.
When we use biomimicry to design an agricultural system to mimic the function of the grasslands biomes, including their many biodiverse species and even large grazers as the primarary ecosystem engineers, vast tonnes of soil carbon builds up deep in the A and B soil horizons.
Until 1996, it was thought the primary source of A and B horizon carbon was degrading organic matter in the O-horizon. And sure enough, in forests this is true. But in Grasslands the primary source for A and B horizon carbon is the LCP by at least 2 orders of magnitude or more. It is that big a deal. I can't emphasize this enough. It is and will continue to be a huge impact on agriculture for many years to come, even if climate scientists never catch up to the soil science.
Remember, my main purpose for taking climate science course was to communicate this knowledge to climate scientists who might have a different silo of knowledge. Please don't be fooled by the same merchants of doubt that are plagueing the energy side of climate science. We have our fully funded merchants of doubt too.
Now here is some info as to why many times you may see a study that even today misses the LCP. See we use chemical fertilizers to supply NPK. Unknowingly this bypasses the function of the soil food web in general and glomalin producing AMF in particular.
and
but more importantly, when we fertilize the soil with large quantities of NPK fertilizers, it shuts down this function.
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Regulate Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis in Petunia hybrida
Something else too. Unlike saprophytic fungi which cause decay of organic matter in the O horizon releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, AMF need a living root at all times to survive. So not only does using NPK fertilizers shut down the LCP, so does herbicides and plowing and even some fungicides.
In fact pretty much everything industrialized ag does now as common GAP unknowingly shuts down the LCP. It's no wonder it took so long to discover. Any time you see a study making claims of the potential rate of soil carbon sequestration, you need to look deeper and see if either standard green revolution methods are being used, or improved no till green revolution methods defined by the USDA as GAP (Good Agricultural Practises)
Turns out GAP was defined PRIOR to the discovery of glomalin and the LCP. So right now all those are being reviewed as we speak by the USDA-NRCS and the USDA-SARE. But already they are beginning to teach it to farmers voluntarily. Seminar on it in two days here in OKC. Was one last year too.
But it is a hugely political issue too with equally big players who are interfering with the denialism side of mitigation potential. All I ask is learn how to spot these so called "reviews" and see for yourself if the methods studied shut down the LCP or not. If they shut down the LCP, then the optimum sequestration rate is much lower and well modeled by the Roth C model.
However, the Roth C model is useless at modeling the LCP.
-
nigelj at 05:38 AM on 24 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
David Wallace-Wells certainly resonates on the issues for me, except that novels on climate change sound like they would feed into the denialist campaign of making fun of the issue. Also novel writers and hollywood making money on such a serious issue is sickening, and will just confuse the science.
Regarding his comments on carbon footprints and political action, I would add solar panels for home use and electric cars are still expensive, so its hard to see the average person buying these. Politicians have to subsidise these sorts of things or have carbon fee and dividend programmes etc. But governments seem scared of having robust policies, possibly in case they upset some lobby group or campaign funder, or have to cut costs in some other area of government action and upset the public.It's going to take very brave politicians, and such animals are rare.
I'm getting despondent about whether the climate issue will be fixed. But something has to happen, because a world up around 3-8 degrees will almost certainly be the disaster scenario Wells talks about. Not wishing to downplay 2 degrees which will be quite serious enough.
-
MA Rodger at 19:46 PM on 23 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
RedBaron @5,
Where you say "You need to go back to basics and rethink what causes Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to begin with," I find your second point is highly controversial and not supported by the three references you present.
Eswaran et al (2001) talks of soil degradation and makes not mention of lost carbon sequestration. Retallack (2013) talks of carbon uptake over millions of years and this as a potential mechanism for carbon sequestration. Bockheim (2014)[Abstract] appears to discuss only this millions-of-years carbon sink and its degradation.
Nowhere is there any suport for your assertion that there exists "environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere," at least no such mechanism existing that ever did so at a rate significant for AGW or could do so without the hand of man assisting it.
-
MA Rodger at 19:25 PM on 23 February 2019Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Ereman @116,
So we all have to sit on our hands for 50 years because you are incapable of seeing that you can "you can't predict with any certainty 50 yrs out."
Hang on a bit, we only have to wait 20 years coz here's one somebody did earlier.
Prev 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 Next
